Because facts, breh.
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Apologetics
  • Podcasts

Adoption: A Rebuttal for Abortion

1/15/2009

8 Comments

 
"There is such a high demand for adoption in this country. Why have an abortion when you could have the child and put them up for adoption?" -- Pro-Life

We're going to move beyond the obvious flaws in this statement and cover the actual process of adoption. It should be noted before I even begin this article that I am not affiliated with a Pro-Life or Pro-Choice standing. I am politically neutral of this debate, but this article serves as a rebuttal to an argument that flusters me. I am not trying to disprove or invalidate Pro-Life arguments or say which side is right.

So, what's this topic about, then, you ask? It has very little to do with abortion, actually. The only reason I mention it is because the argument stems from it and I believe there's a strong correlation between the points. So, I'm going to respond to the quote as necessary.

Yes, there is, indeed, a high demand for adoption in this country. But there is also a high supply. Good, you'd say, right? Wrong. Very, very bad. In fact, it's an outright abomination. The demand has nothing to do with the supply and the supply has nothing to do with the demand; both are high because of the adoption agencies.

"What do you mean?"

You see, when adopting a child, certain information is denied to you. Mediocre complaint, yes? But what if it's the medical history that is denied to you? Often, such information will be denied, limited and even falsified.

As such, adopting a child will mean that you don't know of any preexisting terminal illnesses, family disease, facts about the parents or anything of that nature. With such limited information, can you really care for that child?

Of course not. Some time ago, my aunt adopted a child and I believe she had him for about six months; became very attached to him. And one day, without any kind of warning, the child died.

Later, my aunt found out that the child was a crack baby (the mother was using crack while pregnant with the child) and this information was not given to my aunt.

With such a weak flow of information, people aren't adopting. How do you know the child isn't a pyromaniac or homicidal? Perhaps the father was a convicted serial killer of some unknown mental illness and the genes have passed down to his child.

The excuse here is that there is a "right to privacy" in matters such as this, but that is a mere excuse used to justify a grandeur goal.

Did you know that 42% of children in foster care are black? Do you know why?

Because of racism as a byproduct of greed. Lets say for a moment that I want to adopt a black child (ignore the fact that I'm eighteen and still in school.) My credentials check out perfectly, but I cannot adopt that child because he is black and I am white.

It turns out that
the National Association of Black Social Workers has condemned white adoption of black orphans. So, my dream of being called Dr. Drummond is forever dashed and do you know why?

To "preserve the heritage of the child". According to NABSW, a black child will not be able to adapt to growing up in a white family. Despite the fact that studies show the contrary (
click here for more details), they stand by this affirmation. Instead of allowing these children to have a loving family, they suppress their ability to have stable lifestyle with funny colored people all around them.

If anything, mixed families would allow for greater diversification and balance to the racial pendulum and lead to a common ground. Which means that they're furthering a progressive cycle of discrimination and distinction between races.

But as you guessed, it has nothing to do with a preservation of heritage. That is merely an excuse much like it is with the issue of medical history. It all comes down to money. You see, adoption agencies don't get their money from a child being adopted; they get their money from children being in their custody.

So, because some fat cats want to buy a new corvette, they make thousands of children suffer and narrow their chances at a future every day.

Pretty crooked, eh?
8 Comments
Bambi Brute
11/2/2009 01:35:54 am

Very interesting. I didn't know this part of adoption. I knew that the adopters had to be healthy ones and have all these different requirements, not the kids. I don't understand why someone would adopt a child, though, not knowing of his/her medical history. Having the knowledge of those things would sort of ring a bell in my head that there's something not quite right about that. I plan to adopt, seeing as pregnancy scares me, so this is very useful information. Thanks.


http://www. examiner. com/x-867-LowCarb-Lifestyle-Examiner~y2009m1d13-Bizarre-British-baby-scandal-couple-denied-adoption-because-of-potential-daddys-obesity
(I know this is a UK example, but look into it)

Reply
Ripplemagne
11/2/2009 01:36:22 am

I'm not sure if the same matters occur in the U.K., but reading that article is amazing. The adoption process is ridiculous. Thanks for sharing that article, by the way.

Reply
Adeh
11/2/2009 01:36:54 am

Where is this "42% of children in foster care are black" statistic from? Is this 42% of children in american foster care systems? In North America or the world? Vague statistic.


NABSW is one organization. You can still adopt a black child if you were so inclined, I know families with 2 caucasian parents that have adopted non-caucasian children.
Also when you say "studies show", are you referring to multiple studies or exclusively to "Abortion Facts" dot com?

An adopted child may be well loved and cared for but if they are aware of the fact their parents are not actually their biological parents, they will never truly be able to understand their heritage. This is true whether the parents are, or are not, members of the same heritage as the child. Fact being, they are not the real parents and thus the child is going to miss a certain sense of belonging. This being said, trying to preserve a child's heritage by aligning them with a family of the same heritage seems fairly pointless to me. Even more importantly, that is not really the issue that should be given attention anyways. That organization seems to be putting too much emphasis on heritage. They are ignoring the fact that the primary objective is to find homeless children a family, not to align them with parents of their race. I agree, stupid concept. However I don't think preserving the "distinction between races" is a particularly bad thing. I happen to think that preserving one's culture is very important (while being mindful and accepting of other cultures). The whole melting pot concept is not really my cup of tea.

Reply
Ripplemagne
11/2/2009 01:37:14 am

The 42% statistic is in the United States. I don't know the laws in other countries.


And the NABSW is one organization, but they have ensured that such policies are applied. Your friend likely lives in Canada where the laws are different.

Reply
Adeh
11/2/2009 01:37:38 am

Ah. Well then that's unfortunate. Start a counter-organization, if you're the pro-active type.

Reply
Ripplemagne
11/2/2009 01:38:06 am

I don't think I'd be able to now. But in the future, I'd definitely try to.

Reply
collagen collaskin nasa link
9/30/2016 03:07:34 am

like this, very good your article

Reply
aris sofyan link
10/1/2016 04:16:38 am

like this, very good your article

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Ripplemagne

    See why critics are raving...

    Archives

    October 2012
    June 2012
    March 2012
    October 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    September 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    October 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    January 2009
    November 2008
    October 2008

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by
✕